BREAKING NEWS

[TheOneX]

My guess is throwing out the PA results is still pretty unlikely.

If it was deemed to be held through unconstitutional means your only option is to nullify the election. To do otherwise sets a scary precedent ripe for abuse.

Nullifying elections based on bureaucratic and legal confusion sets a pretty bad precedent, equally ripe for abuse.

As I understand the PA lawsuit, the claim is that in the rush to change some election procedures the proper legislative channels were ignored. There is a strong case for this.

The second part of any lawsuit, though, is what remedy should be applied. Nullification isn't the only option. In fact, it is a pretty unlikely remedy. Asking the legislature to fix up the new laws through proper channels before the next election is a more reasonable expectation.

No, not at all, that is idiotic. Maybe you are forgetting something, the word unconstitutional is synonymous with illegal, it is just a special kind of illegal that refers to the very foundation of your governmental system. If this election is deemed unconstitutional that means this election is deemed illegal. You cannot have people serving in office that were elected illegally. The fix for this is simple, you have a new election. Nullifying an election does not mean you suddenly disenfranchise everyone, no it means you have another damn election held through legal means. There is no other legal option if the election is ruled unconstitutional, end of story this is not up for debate. Allowing any other option is how you get dictators, not how you avoid them.

The only office where holding a new election is not viable is for President of the United States of America because that election is held to a higher law than Pennsylvania's Constitution. For this election, the authority to choose the electors has always been in the hands of the state legislature. They have in the past delegated that selection away, but always have the right to override that delegation. So yeah, maybe not ideal, but at least you keep your constitutional integrity intact. The other option is to say the Constitution does not matter, only the whims of those in power matter. That is not acceptable.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If it was deemed to be held through unconstitutional means your only option is to nullify the election. To do otherwise sets a scary precedent ripe for abuse.

Nullifying elections based on bureaucratic and legal confusion sets a pretty bad precedent, equally ripe for abuse.

As I understand the PA lawsuit, the claim is that in the rush to change some election procedures the proper legislative channels were ignored. There is a strong case for this.

The second part of any lawsuit, though, is what remedy should be applied. Nullification isn't the only option. In fact, it is a pretty unlikely remedy. Asking the legislature to fix up the new laws through proper channels before the next election is a more reasonable expectation.

No, not at all, that is idiotic. Maybe you are forgetting something, the word unconstitutional is synonymous with illegal, it is just a special kind of illegal that refers to the very foundation of your governmental system. If this election is deemed unconstitutional that means this election is deemed illegal. You cannot have people serving in office that were elected illegally. The fix for this is simple, you have a new election. Nullifying an election does not mean you suddenly disenfranchise everyone, no it means you have another damn election held through legal means. There is no other legal option if the election is ruled unconstitutional, end of story this is not up for debate. Allowing any other option is how you get dictators, not how you avoid them.

The only office where holding a new election is not viable is for President of the United States of America because that election is held to a higher law than Pennsylvania's Constitution. For this election, the authority to choose the electors has always been in the hands of the state legislature. They have in the past delegated that selection away, but always have the right to override that delegation. So yeah, maybe not ideal, but at least you keep your constitutional integrity intact. The other option is to say the Constitution does not matter, only the whims of those in power matter. That is not acceptable.

Not every legal, or constitutional dispute creates some sort of manichaean, existential threat of dictatorship.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I’ll reiterate my position: there is massive fraud as indicated by the statistics. If there wasn’t then I wouldn’t support all these legal shenanigans, and neither would Rudy nor Sydney.

I don't understand how spurious lawsuits help the case of proving fraud.

I also have no idea how other computer scientists and engineers feel about what the statistics indicate. I only know what other judges have said about spurious lawsuits brought by R&S.

[Martin Hash]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

[Martin Hash]

Judges are just people, all less wise than myself. That doesn't mean I don't respect them, just that I went to Law school with them and I'm not impressed.

[The Conservative]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

If what you linked continues to the path it is, this may be what he needs to have the president and in turn overturn states to his favor.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

[The Conservative]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

If it happens in one state, the rest will follow suit.

[Martin Hash]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

You are blinded by almost-TDS (I could never tell, you're not Monte but you seem to deny logic). If Trump can get to SCOTUS, he's got 75% chance of winning.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

If it happens in one state, the rest will follow suit.

That is a bold prediction.